Why Can’t Introverts Be Leaders?

Research has shown a consistent positive relationship between extraversion and leadership. In groups of strangers, such as a jury, extraversion predicts who will be selected foreperson of the jury (it’s actually likely to be the person who talks the most, and that person is probably an extravert). So, extraverts are more likely to be chosen for leadership positions (what we call leader ‘emergence’).

There is also a positive relationship (although a weaker one) between extraversion and leader effectiveness, particularly rated effectiveness of leaders. So it appears that extraverts have an edge, but does this mean that introverts can’t be good leaders? Of course not!

Many successful leaders are introverted, for example Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, and in business, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. One of the best company presidents that I’ve known was easily the most introverted person among his executive team, but he was very successful and his colleagues admired his “quiet reserve and confidence.” So what is the critical factor that both extraverts and introverts need to emerge as a leader and to be effective?

Our research has suggested that the key element is good interpersonal, or social, skills. In one study, we looked at the relationship of extraversion to leadership emergence and effectiveness and found that the advantage that extraverts had disappeared when we put social skills into the equation (social skills mediated the relationship between extraversion and leadership). In other words, only extraverts who possessed social skills were effective leaders. Good interpersonal skills are critical whether the leader is an extravert or an introvert.

In addition, we know that we are more likely to choose leaders who look like their prototypes of leaders – they speak well, interact well with others, and just look “leader-like.” Extraverts just naturally look more like a prototypical leader (particularly political leaders) than do introverts. [Think of the U.S. presidential campaign where presidential hopefuls were evaluated for how much each looked like he or she could be the Commander-in-Chief].

The key to leadership success then is to develop the people skills needed to look like a leader, but to also develop the good leader-follower relationships that are necessary for success. If you possess these skills, introversion and extraversion don’t matter very much.

Well it would be nice if the extroverts didn't hog all the management and "talking heads" jobs.

My older brother, not an introvert really...maybe half and half extrovert, has an Economics degree and got passed over for a simple Manager position at Future Shop, which he had few years of experience already working for them (this was many years ago). And this brother has the hugest ego I know of, and a big mouth...that seems to be what qualifies someone to be gleaned for a manager position these days -- well then my brother ought to have gotten that job! Additionally he was very well educated...maybe overqualified, but his aspiration was to be a manager and thought he would have a chance since he already had the experience and his education would be a bonus.

He did wanted to be a manager there very badly -- to start somewhere. But he got turned down, so he left that store and turn to work at some nerdy job. My brother's good looking...so you'd figured he would get the job -- but too bad he wasn't white.

I read Susan Cain's book, "Quiet," and it is amazing. Cain discussed her research about cultural perceptions of introversion/extroversion, highly sensitive people, threat oriented people, and reward oriented people. It seems that both character types (intro & extro) would make good leaders but for different reasons and in different ways. If you have a group of people with big personalities, an introvert would be better at making everyone feel heard and understood.

I cannot stand psychology and I especially cannot stand PhD psychologists. It's ALL opinion. They believe they know something... they know NOTHING! Extroverts make better leaders simply because underlings want to know where they stand. It's as simple as that. Introverts are hard to read, extroverts, easy. This is not opinion. This is common sense.

I think you will find that common sense is as often wrong as it is right. That is why we conduct research in Psychology -- to be able to empirically derive the correct answer to questions about human behavior.

I've taken many psychology courses, which explains my strong contempt for it. "Hard research" in psychology consists of asking people to give their opinions. Just because it's not YOUR opinion doesn't give it any greater validity... it's still 100% opinion.

Let me give you an example of ubiquitous village idiot PhD psychology research. One of you subgeniuses have developed "hard research" that pedophiles are always recidivist. Every PhD believes it. Every psychiatrist believes it. What is the very first thing people are taught about humans and human nature? That we're all snowflakes, no two alike. And if no two are alike, you cannot possibly have any such predictive powers regarding people for which you are unfamiliar.

It's not as if I dislike PhD psychologists. I detest them. I can guarantee I'm not alone in my pure hatred for you people. You all put on airs as if the work you're doing is important. In reality, you one step below a carney. I say "below" because the carney lacks the delusions. You may think people are giving you respect, as you get all gussied with your snappy jacket and smart tie but this is not always true. Remember this the next time someone looks at you with utter disgust. It will just be another person who understands the true nature of the deception. It's all one big scam and you well know it.